User talk:Alexr9873

Welcome!

Hi Alexr9873! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty spaces

I see that you are not a very experienced editor, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The insistence that blank spaces in infobox syntax "make it easier to edit" is false. They provide nothing. I also request that you do not refer to me as "your guy." KidAd talk 21:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kate S. O'Scannlain. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

I reversed identical disruptive editing on the page for John Roberts yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Roberts&diff=next&oldid=979625612 Lindenfall (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning 2

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kate S. O'Scannlain, you may be blocked from editing. KidAd talk 21:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to talk to you but you've failed to respond and you're just taking action unilaterally.

Warning 3

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. KidAd talk 18:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude cmon man, you're literally the only one that thinks its "Disruptive". Alexr9873 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "disruptive" thing did I do now?? Alexr9873 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to add blank spaces to multiple pages. KidAd talk 18:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current style is inconsistent with the near majority of similar pages, simply conforming it. How does adding these spaces bother you? My b, forgot to sign, with love <3, ya lad Alexr9873 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexr9873 I have no interest in discussing your disruptive editing on another user's talk page. That was not an appropriate decision, and I suggest that you remove the conversation from Snickers2686's talk page with an apology for involving them unnecessarily. As I said before, I have given you ample warnings to stop your disruption, but you refused all of them. You instead continue to use disrespectful greetings and signatures such as my b, Bruh my guy, and with love <3, ya lad. I have explained that your behavior is disrespectful, but you again choose to continue. Your disruptive editing is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Editors here are expected to work collaboratively, and assume good faith. As you continued to ignore my warnings and continue edit disruptively, you slowly eroded this sense of good faith. Wikipedia is also based on consensus-building. Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. If you feel so strongly about inserting blank spaces into ever infobox you come across, you must gain consensus for each. Or, you could always dedicate your time to something a little more productive, like fixing a spelling error, adding a source, or removing IP vandalism when you see it. Please be mature and do not make it my job to police your behavior. You are quickly running out of chances. KidAd talk 21:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lmfao, alright, you obviously aren't interested in having a discussion, and now you're following me and being vindictive by reverted edits on pages you had no prior involvement in. It's bullshit that because you don't like what I'm doing, you're following me and not acting in good faith. I've attempted to have a discussion but you're not interested and continue to threaten me. At this point I'm going for Third Party Opinion and Arbitration. Alexr9873 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

I appreciate that you are a new user. Nevertheless, you have been warned several times about your habit of inserting extraneous spaces into infoboxes. Please now stop doing it. Repetition of this behavior will render you at serious risk of being prevented from editing here. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I take this to Third Party Opinion and Arbitration? Alexr9873 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to formulate a response which you might care to regard as a third party opinion from another administrator. Arbitration is not relevant here. More to follow later. Meanwhile I'd ask you not to make any more of these trivial edits, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, the vast majority of pages hold the format which is in dispute, I've made these edits without complaint since before I formally joined up until I edited a page which he was involved in. I know that the format makes it easier to edit, especially as a mobile user. It's pointed out that I need consensus, but that's for disputed content, how is standardizing the format in dispute when others pages that were even created by the other user hold the format which he argues against. I decided to just move on, and the other user followed me to revert edits vindictively. Alexr9873 (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits to Potter Stewart because they didn't seem constructive. You added a lot of unnecessary spaces and removed some information, such as the flag template, from the infobox. Per the discussion above - I suggest you stop editing infoboxes. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Destroyeraa: Removing the flag template seemed quite acceptable to me, per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, following my holding response above, here goes with this admin's opinion on what has gone off here, and what needs to stop:

I was brought into this dispute, as a result of a report of vandalism made by KidAd against Alexr9873 at WP:AIV (diff).
I declined to act as I did not deem insertion of blank spaces into Infoboxes as vandalism (Wikipedia:Vandalism states: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.)
Some three minutes after my decline, Anthony Bradbury left the above final warning message (possible edit conflict?).
Checking talk pages, there has been quite some cross exchanges between both editors, perhaps not helped by the way each party has interacted with one another. (I'll ask now: please nobody call me broh, bruv or such similar terms, which I find condescending, but appreciate others do not)
There is no policy that states we must not have spaces within parameters in Infoboxes so that they appear aligned. In fact, most examples I've looked at do have well-spaced parameters. e.g. Template:Infobox person; Template:Infobox settlement, Template:Infobox mountain.
Articles created by KidAd have also included large spaces between parameters ([1], [2], [3], and thus their claims that this is unacceptable and that they should be reverted do not seem valid.
WP:ONUS has been used by KidA as a rationale for not accepting the addition of spaces against their view of it. I do not accept that as a valid rationale as ONUS relates to content, not formatting, and the double standards used in their arguments with Alexr9873 (when seen against their own article creations) is itself disruptive, and WP:BITEY
I do feel that Alexr9873 has been disruptive in making innumerable minor edits which have solely changed the spaces present within Infoboxes and nothing else. These changes have attracted others to revert unnecessary alterations - a little like changing one valid spelling for another is disruptive and unhelpful.
Had those edits occurred alongside other more significant changes to the articles, I would not see that as disruptive at all. But changes for changes sake because one editor prefers one layout version, whilst another editor prefers a different one are not acceptable. If allowed to continue unchecked, we would have constant switching back and forth, which would be very disruptive.
Whilst I have not checked for breaches of WP:3RR (and nor do I propose to at this time) I will warn both editors that constantly reverting one another to their preferred formatting could well lead to editing sanctions against you. Vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR but, as stated above, this is not the case here, though the editing has proven disruptive.
Alexr9873 has been given a 'final warning' by a fellow administrator, Anthony Bradbury which was perhaps one level too high for the obvious disruption that purely editing to insert extra blank spaces has caused here. That said, unless Anthony chooses to change it, I am prepared to leave it in place as I want to see no more petty editing with just insertion or removal of blank spaces into Infoboxes, or wholesale pushing of the already aligned '=' signs a few spaces further right. Alex, are you agreeable to this, and either make no more Infobox spacing changes, or only to change Infoboxes as part of genuine main article edits which alters other content, and with no 'gaming' of that agreement?
@KidAd: you are warned not to over assert elements of policy on other users which are either inappropriate under the circumstances, or hypocritical when seen against your own recent editing. Do not use WP:AIV as a means to wrongly accuse another editor of vandalism - perhaps re-familiarise yourself with WP:VANDALISM?
If anyone feels this 'third party opinion' (which I offer in good faith) is unfair or seriously misinterpreting policy or community expectations, you are free to take your concerns to WP:ANI to get a broader opinion, but this is unlikely to be an easy ride for either editor.
And finally, despite you each having principled views on layout, it's clear you're both wanting to see this encyclopaedia improve, and I thank you for that. So can we stay nice and polite in our dealings with one another, please, and simply move on to bigger and more important things? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I do not like edit warring nor changing an infobox's layout for no particular reason. I suggest Alexr9873 to stop editing infoboxes of BLP articles unless there is a clear rational for doing so (i.e. reverting vandalism, correcting false information). Also, I suggest that KidAd to stop following Alexr9873 around on Wikipedia, because no one wants to be followed around on Wikipedia or anywhere on the internet. Removing the flag was not disruptive, and probably good-faith, but there wasn't clear rational for mixing up the infobox layout. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I trust it is noted that while I obviously placed a warning in the talk page I did not use a template one, which tend to appear threatening. I also did not specifically label the edits in dispute as vandalism. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up

@Nick Moyes: I have a few follow up questions on your comments on the situation and other questions on Wikipedia itself. Is there a private message system or is all communication done via talk pages? Alexr9873 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. Sorry for not replying earlier. Your PING notification to me failed, I'm afraid, and it was by chance I cam back to check for any response. It's an easy mistake to make, but one has to both correctly name the other editor and sign your post within one and the same 'publish edit' action. If you try to come back and correct an error in a later edit, it simply doesn't work.

Anyway, to answer your question: it is possible to email users, but, to be frank, I'm very unlikely to reply by that means. We keep that for really confidential stuff like outing or revdel issues. You can post on my talk page, if you prefer, and I can answer and ping you from there. But we function well when we keeping things open and not going behind one other's backs. If you are embarrassed to ask a question, I guess you could email me, but I would almost certainly still reply in public to you, which does rather defeat the point! I was rather hoping we could move on from the situation we've discussed, but I'm OK to clarify a few quick points if I didn't come over in a clear manner. Looking forward to hearing from you, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Alexr9873! Your additions to David B. Shear have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]